On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:16, Andrew Soltau wrote:
On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, you did not answer my last point on the comp reversal, at the
UDA step seven.
From that previous email
Step seven itself shows the reversal between physics and arithmetic
(or any first order theory of any universal system in post Church
Turing sense) in case the physical universe exists primitively and
is sufficiently big.
It is this 'reversal' which I do not follow. You do not seem to mean
simply and solely the reversal of the primacy of physics and
I do. The details of the proof makes it also a reversal between
physics and computer science, and even between physics and "computer's
theology or self-reference".
Some predicted to me in the eighties that all the "material
hypostases" would collapse (here it means the modality Bp, and Dp and
p would be equivalent), so that the logic of physics would be
classical propositional calculus. If that did happen, it would have
mean that physics is empty, and that everything 'physical' is actually
geographical. There would be no physical *laws*, and we would have
been able to find place in the universe with arbitrary laws. But the
material modalities did not collapse, and the quantum principle
appears as a very plausible general trait of the universal machine.
Step seven establish that physics is a branch of arithmetic.
the reversal of the primacy of physics and arithmetic.
Yes. The theory of everything is basically addition+multiplication in
the natural numbers. But there are many equivalent theories.
Why should it be redundant? It predicts the results of experiments
with the highest precision known to any science in the history of
the human race.
That schroedinger equation has to be redundant.
That alone suggests that SWE might a theorem, and not an axiom or
something to be inferred from observation. Isn't it?
Step 1-7 is the reduction of the mind body problem to a purely
mathematical body problem. It is the contrary of the idea that
particles and fileds result from a classical algorithm.
I was not aware that anyone thinks that particles and fileds result
from a classical algorithm. What point are you making?
That comp, which reduce physics to number theory, is not digital
physics, which makes the universe (particles and fields) a computable
thing (and thus that physics could be rendered by a classical
algorithm, like a classical program computing a quantum computer for
My point here was the distinction between comp and digital physics.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at